Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority (“CA”) (released on 28
July 2016)
The CA considered the following cases which had been deliberated by the Broadcast
Complaints Committee (“BCC”) –
Complaint Cases
1.
2.
3.
4.
Television Programme “Scoop” (東張西望)
Radio Programme “Lunch Special” (一點叮一叮)
Television Programme “Yo! Gym+”
Television Programme “Kansai Raider” (関西攻略)
The CA also considered cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the
Director-General of Communications (“DG Com”) on complaint cases.
Having considered the recommendations of the BCC, the CA decided–
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
that a warning be given to Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on the
complaints related to the television programme “Scoop” (東張西望);
that an advice be given to Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company
Limited on the complaint related to the radio programme “Lunch Special” (一點
叮一叮);
that no further action be taken against HK Television Entertainment Company
Limited on the complaints related to the television programme “Yo! Gym+”;
that no further action be taken against TVB and TVB Network Vision Limited
on the complaints related to the television programme “Kansai Raider” (関西攻
略); and
to uphold the decisions of the DG Com on four cases of dissatisfaction with the
decisions of the DG Com. (List of the cases is available in the Appendix.)
28 July 2016
-2Case 1 – Television Programme “Scoop” (東張西望) broadcast on the Jade
Channel of Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on 1 January 2016 at 7:30pm
to 8:00pm
Two members of the public complained that the frequent appearance of the logo of a
supermarket (the “Supermarket”) during the interview with two artistes amounted to
indirect advertising.
The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the
representations of TVB in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of
the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a) the concerned programme was an infotainment programme on hot issues and
showbiz gossips. The brand of the Supermarket was identified as the product
sponsor in the end credits;
(b) there was a segment featuring an interview with two artistes shooting an
advertisement for the Supermarket in a sitting room setting. There were
repeated medium shots of three placards carrying the Chinese and English names
and logo of the Supermarket on the curtain behind the two artistes and of the
stickers on the artistes’ arms, as well as repeated prominent shots of a similar
placard placed on the tea table in front of the two artistes; and
(c) during the interview, the artistes talked about the shooting tidbits and their
family life. There was no mention of the name or any products of the
Supermarket in the interview.
Relevant Provision in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme
Standards (“TV Programme Code”)
(a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 – indirect advertising which refers to the mingling of
programme and advertising material or the embedding of advertising material
within programme content, whether inadvertently or by design, is prohibited; and
Relevant Provision in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Advertising
Standards (“TV Advertising Code”)
(a) paragraph 10(a) of Chapter 9 – the exposure or use of the sponsor’s product
within a programme should be clearly justified editorially, not obtrusive to
viewing pleasure and not gratuitous.
-3The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) it was contextually justified to include in an infotainment programme an
interview with artistes while they were shooting an advertisement and there was
no mention of the Supermarket’s name and products during the interview.
Nonetheless, the exposure of the placards showing the name and logo of the
Supermarket, in particular the repeated shots of the placard placed on the tea
table in front of the two artistes, was very prominent. Such exposure of the
sponsor’s name and logo in the segment was gratuitous and obtrusive to viewing
pleasure, could not be justified by the editorial need of the programme, and
amounted to indirect advertising; and
(b) TVB’s submission that it had no control over the location, sets and props of the
interview was not a valid justification or relevant consideration since TVB, as a
broadcasting licensee, had the responsibility to ensure that the material included
in its licensed service complied with the Codes of Practice.
Decision
In view of the above, the CA decided that the complaints were justified. Having
regard to the relevant precedent and TVB’s repeated contravention of the sponsorship
and indirect advertising provisions, the CA decided that TVB should be warned to
observe more closely paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 of the TV Programme Code and
paragraph 10(a) of Chapter 9 of the TV Advertising Code.
Case 2 – Radio Programme “Lunch Special” (一點叮一叮) broadcast on the CR
1 Channel of Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited
(“CRHK”) on 30 December 2015 at 1:00pm to 2:00pm
A member of the public complained that when introducing the latest medical findings
on a quick test for mental illness, the remark of a programme hostess that people with
mental illness would inflict harm on others was unfair to and discriminating the
mentally ill.
The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the
representations of CRHK in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of
the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a)
the concerned programme was a music programme. During breaks between
songs, the programme hostess mentioned the results of some medical researches
published in 2015, and one of the medical researches revealed that there were
more bacteria in the oral cavities of patients with schizophrenia. She remarked
-4that the concerned discovery would help doctors make a diagnosis by simply
testing the saliva of the patients and allow the patients to receive treatment more
promptly. The hostess then said “話晒有精神問題嘅人會危害其他人嘅安全
㗎嘛” (people with mental problems would put other people’s safety at risk)
(“the concerned remark”); and
(b) according to information published by local hospitals, people with mental illness
are not violent in general, and mental patients including those with schizophrenia
are not more dangerous than other people in society.
Relevant Provision in the Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards
(“Radio Programme Code”)
(a)
paragraph 7(b) – a licensee should not include in its programmes any material
which is likely to encourage hatred against or fear of, and/or considered to be
denigrating or insulting to any person(s) or group(s) on the basis of, among
others, mental disability.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) the concerned remark would give general listeners an impression that people
with mental problems would put other people’s safety at risk; and
(b) although the concerned remark was uttered once in passing and appeared to be
unintentional, the hostess should have been more careful and sensitive when
discussing the subject matter.
Decision
In view of the above, the CA considered that the complaint was justified. Having
regard to the relevant precedents, the CA decided that CRHK should be advised to
observe more closely paragraph 7(b) of the Radio Programme Code.
Case 3 – Television Programme “Yo! Gym+” broadcast on the ViuTV Channel
of HK Television Entertainment Company Limited (“ViuTV”) on 7 and 14 April
2016 at 12:20pm to 12:55pm
A member of the public complained that the display of the logo of the concerned
fitness centre printed on the T-shirt of the trainer in two segments of the programme
gave undue prominence to the two fitness centres and amounted to indirect
advertising.
-5The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the
representations of ViuTV in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of
the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a)
the concerned programme was a fitness programme providing information on
yoga exercise, body training and healthy diet;
(b) in the two concerned programme segments introducing gym exercises, there
were shots showing a professional trainer in a white T-shirt bearing the name and
logo of the concerned fitness centre demonstrated some exercises in the fitness
centre;
(c)
at the start of one of the segments broadcast on 7 April, a host mentioned that the
concerned fitness centre provided a specific training programme for athletes.
The trainer then briefly introduced the relevant sports equipment available in that
centre;
(d) in another segment broadcast on 14 April, the name and logo of the fitness centre
were discernible on the wall of the fitness centre in the background;
(e)
no verbal reference to the names of the two concerned fitness centres was found
in the two episodes. Neither fitness centre was identified as a sponsor of the
programme but they were both acknowledged in the end credits; and
(f)
ViuTV submitted that the concerned programme was an acquired programme
which was not produced specifically for ViuTV and that the broadcast of the
programme was not sponsored by the fitness centres concerned.
Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code
(a)
paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 – indirect advertising which refers to the mingling of
programme and advertising material or the embedding of advertising material
within programme content, whether inadvertently or by design, is prohibited; and
(b)
paragraph 3 of Chapter 11 – no undue prominence may be given in any
programme to a product, service, trademark, brand name or logo of a commercial
nature so that the effect of such reference amounts to advertising. Such
references must be limited to what can clearly be justified by the editorial
requirements of the programme itself, or of an incidental nature.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) no verbal reference was made to the name of the two concerned fitness centres,
and the remarks of the trainers focused on the correct postures and effects of
-6doing the relevant exercises, which were contextually justified in a fitness
programme;
(b) the conversation between the programme hosts and the trainer in relation to the
equipment available in the fitness centre featured in the segment broadcast on 7
April was brief and general in nature;
(c) it was common for fitness professionals to put on sportswear bearing the name
and/or logo of their fitness centres. While the names and logos of the fitness
centres concerned were discernible on the T-shirts of both trainers or on the
fitness centre’s wall in the background, the concerned exposure was incidental
and editorially justified under the circumstances; and
(d) in light of the above, such exposure was acceptable for broadcast and no undue
prominence which amounted to indirect advertising was given to the concerned
fitness centres.
Decision
In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints unsubstantiated and decided
that no further action should be taken against ViuTV.
Case 4 – Television Programme “Kansai Raider” (関西攻略) broadcast on the
Jade Channel of Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on 27 April 2016 at
10:30pm to 11:00pm and on the Jade Catch Up Channel of TVB Network Vision
Limited (“TVBNV”) on 28 April 2016 at various time slots1
A member of the public complained that a foul expression was heard in the
background during the end credits of the programme.
The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the
representations of TVB and TVBNV in detail. The CA took into account the
relevant aspects of the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a) the programme was a travelogue on Kansai, Japan; and
(b) during the end credits of the programme, a footage of the hostess roasting meat
in a restaurant was shown. A man off screen uttered some remarks but the
alleged foul expression was not clearly audible.
1
The timeslots alleged by the complainant were 2:30am to 3:00am and 6:30am to 7:00am.
-7Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code
Domestic Free Television Programme Services
(a) paragraph 6 of Chapter 4 – downright offensive expressions and obscene or
profane language are prohibited;
Domestic Pay Television Programme Services
(b) paragraph 7 of Chapter 4 – the use of downright offensive language may only be
permitted in programmes or on channels restricted for adults provided it is
appropriate to the story line or programme context; and
(c) paragraph 8 of Chapter 4 – obscene or profane language that is likely to offend a
substantial portion of the audience is prohibited.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) the concerned utterance was barely audible in the noisy background with the
sound volume turned up; and
(b) the concerned licensees should be given the benefit of the doubt under such
circumstances.
Decision
In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints unsubstantiated and decided
that no further action should be taken against TVB and TVBNV.
-8Appendix
List of Cases of Dissatisfaction with the DG Com’s Decisions
Title
Channel
Broadcast
Date
7.4.2016
Substance of
Complaint
Inaccuracy
Decision being
upheld
Minor breach
TV Programme
“Wealth 360” (智富
360)
TVB J5
TV Programmes
“News
Roundup/News
Report” (晚間新聞),
“Overnight News”
(深宵新聞報道) &
Various Programmes
TVB Jade, I
News &
TVBNV TVBN
28 and
29.2.2016
Inaccuracy,
Partiality &
Indirect
Advertising
Unsubstantiated
TV Programme
“Scoop” (東張西望)
TVB Jade &
TVBNV Jade
Catch Up
18 and
19.4.2016
Bad Influence on
Children
Unsubstantiated
TV Programmes
“Putonghua News”
(普通話新聞報道),
“Putonghua Financial
Report” (普通話財經
報道), “Putonghua
Weather Report” (普
通話天氣報告) &
Putonghua News
Files (普通話新聞檔
案)
TVB J5
22.2.2016
onwards
Provision of
Simplified Chinese
Subtitles and
Captions
Outside the remit
of the CA